How Capitalism Betrayed Privacy

[SummerMadness]

How Capitalism Betrayed Privacy

For much of human history, what we now call "privacy" was better known as being rich. Privacy, like wealth, was something that most people had little or none of. Farmers, slaves and serfs resided in simple dwellings, usually with other people, sometimes even sharing space with animals. They had no expectation that a meaningful part of their lives would be unwatchable or otherwise off limits to others. That would have required homes with private rooms. And only rich people had those.

The spread of mass privacy, surely one of modern civilization's more impressive achievements, thus depended on another, even more impressive achievement: the creation of a middle class. Only over the past 300 years or so, as increasingly large numbers of people gained the means to control their physical environment through the acquisition of wealth and private property, did privacy norms and eventually privacy rights come into existence. What is a right to privacy without a room of your own?

 

[SummerMadness]

I think it's interesting that we often vehemently oppose the government surveilling us, but there is less resistance to a company doing that. What is the difference between a government using data to target you versus a company? I think for the most part, companies have more data than they know what to do with it; however, as big data analyses become more sophisticated, there is potential for many "evil" things to occur. Many of the companies that used to argue "do no evil" have most certainly abandoned that principle.

 

[LoAmmi]

I think it's interesting that we often vehemently oppose the government surveilling us, but there is less resistance to a company doing that. What is the difference between a government using data to target you versus a company? I think for the most part, companies have more data than they know what to do with it; however, as big data analyses become more sophisticated, there is potential for many "evil" things to occur. Many of the companies that used to argue "do no evil" have most certainly abandoned that principle.

Because the Republicans since Reagan have spent countless hours teaching the right-wing that government is bad and business is good.

 

[ananda]

Because the Republicans since Reagan have spent countless hours teaching the right-wing that government is bad and business is good.

Government is another business & company, in a different guise, possessing a monopoly and the ability to compel you to purchase its goods.

 

[Of the Kingdom]

Many of the companies that used to argue "do no evil" have most certainly abandoned that principle.

I automatically think of one specific company. I believe they were the ones who first said it, and their tools helped that meme and many others to spread across the Internet. How do we balance government, businesses, and the non-profit communities having intersecting privileges and responsibilities with respect to "private" data? Which aspects of "net neutrality" need to be regulated and which left alone? Is GDPR a good model, or more trouble than help?

 

[Not David]

The government and the monopolies work with each other.

 

[LoAmmi]

Government is another business & company, in a different guise, possessing a monopoly and the ability to compel you to purchase its goods.

Incorrect.

 

[ananda]

Incorrect.

I disagree.

 

[LoAmmi]

I disagree.

You are entitled to your incorrect opinion.

 

[ananda]

You are entitled to your incorrect opinion.

You are too!

 

[Goonie]

I think it's interesting that we often vehemently oppose the government surveilling us, but there is less resistance to a company doing that. What is the difference between a government using data to target you versus a company? I think for the most part, companies have more data than they know what to do with it; however, as big data analyses become more sophisticated, there is potential for many "evil" things to occur. Many of the companies that used to argue "do no evil" have most certainly abandoned that principle.

China are perfecting absolute control.
China’s hi-tech war on its Muslim minority

 

[LoAmmi]

You are too!

Here's why you are objectively wrong:

If a corporation makes a decision that harms me, I might be able to prevail in court, but I cannot vote out the CEO and put in a new one that will make a different decision.

 

[FenderTL5]

I think it's interesting that we often vehemently oppose the government surveilling us, but there is less resistance to a company doing that. What is the difference between a government using data to target you versus a company? I think for the most part, companies have more data than they know what to do with it; however, as big data analyses become more sophisticated, there is potential for many "evil" things to occur. Many of the companies that used to argue "do no evil" have most certainly abandoned that principle.

Couple this with the fact that those who collect the data have learned that the most cost-efficient way to turn a profit, is to merely sell the data to others.

 

[SummerMadness]

Couple this with the fact that those who collect the data have learned that the most cost-efficient way to turn a profit, is to merely sell the data to others.

I think of DNA companies and their inevitable s selling of data to health insurance companies. There seems an obsession with “no government” and “free market,” bit little is paid to the real issue: privacy. We should be looking at ways to preserve privacy as opposed to looking at the subject through the lens of your economic religion.

 

[ananda]

Here's why you are objectively wrong:

If a corporation makes a decision that harms me, I might be able to prevail in court, but I cannot vote out the CEO and put in a new one that will make a different decision.

Yes you can, if you're a shareholder. Citizens = shareholders.

 

[LoAmmi]

Yes you can, if you're a shareholder. Citizens = shareholders.

Citizens do not have to buy anything to vote. I have to own shares to be a shareholder.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

Privacy is just an illusion people think exists so they can feel safe. But privacy does not exist. Even more in an electronic era.

It is why I laugh when people run away from FB and mock those who use it for having their privacy invaded. But yet these people who mock still are using the next, using smart phones, paying bills online, using their real info to sign up for things....etc. I don't care what Alexa or Facebook does to me because I accept privacy is not a real thing anymore.

 

[ananda]

Citizens do not have to buy anything to vote. I have to own shares to be a shareholder.

It depends on the company. Sometimes shares are given away to shareholders. Purchasing shares is not an integral part of the business model - holding shares is.

 

[Sparagmos]

Government is another business & company, in a different guise, possessing a monopoly and the ability to compel you to purchase its goods.

In a democracy, government is controlled by “we the people.” Citizens have no say in a business’s operations. The fact that half of the populace chooses not to participate in our democracy, thus giving up a lot of that control, doesn’t change the fact that the government is ours and we have the ability to change and control it.

 

[Sparagmos]

Yes you can, if you're a shareholder. Citizens = shareholders.

All adult citizens have power in choosing and controlling their government. Being able to have limited say if you buy a share holds no comparison.